How does the concept of safe failure in ILS / VLE's play a role in engaging otherwise disengaged learners? To answer this question one must look both at the functionality and constructs of ILS/VLE, as well as examine what the learner may or may not bring with them into the learning environment.
+ ISL/VLE Immersive Learning Simulation (ILS) or Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) are frequently used synonymously. In both, the learner is essentially immersed into a virtual world. Within this environment, situations and activities are presented to an individual that provide an opportunity to learn and participate via new experiences. VLE’s require the learner to be immersed within, and interact with, an alternative environment (Ang & Wang, 2006). When a learner is actively involved in the VLE, content and motion within the “game” are so closely related, that the lines between learning and fun are blurred (deFreitas, 2006; Jones, 1998). VLE construct Traditional coursework, both face-to-face and via distance education, rely heavily on reading, comprehension, and writing skills. A majority of internet sites are predominately text based. A VLE allows an individual to participate within an environment where content is processed via alternative learning styles, specifically kinesthetic, along with visual/auditory. (Torrisi & Piangerelli, 2010). Within a VLE, the boundaries for reality are skewed. The environment is created via a network of graphics, assets, sounds and the interaction between each component (Jones, 1998). This interplay provides an opportunity for learning. When content is created within a VLE for the purpose of knowledge acquisition, consideration of key points must be addressed. Does the learner have an opportunity to explore the environment; is the activity flexible and does it allow for self-direction; does it provide motivation and challenges that encourage the individual to continue to explore; and is the content presented in such a manner that is perceived as a learning module or as game (deFreitas, 2006; Richardson, 2001)? Learning within a VLE is based upon the challenges presented via the content, an individual’s personal assessment of the activity, and the extent of the student’s engagement within the environment (Ang & Wang, 2006). As content is presented in a manner that requires the learner to be immersed and interact within the environment, acquisition of knowledge may be quite time-intensive (Ang & Wang, 2006; Richardson, 2001) Learner Intrinsic motivation of the learner to maintain their participation in a VLE must occur for learning to be achieved. Learner characteristics can affect this intrinsic function. The degree of interaction within the environment, attitudes regarding the content and the technology, as well as an individual’s personal traits all play a role in the learning process. These characteristics can either support or hinder the ability to, and the depth of learning (Richardson, 2001). The VLE provides the action, however the degree of satisfaction by the participant learner is impacted by the symbiosis of achievement of goals and skill competency. Ultimately the student is control of the learning process. Acquisition of knowledge is reinforced by a learner’s frequent opportunity for reflection and interaction within the VLE (Dede, 2009) Engagement In a VLE, the learner steps out of their real-world identity, and takes on the role of another totally different character. Students takes ownership of a virtual identify that is protected and separate from reality (Dede, 2009; Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell, 2009). Life within VLE’s has no counterpoint to reality, thus the learner is able to participate and learn without fear of consequences or potential censure for errors, or the impact of peer feedback (Ang & Wang, 2006). The learner is internally motivated to participate. The immersion within a VLE can shape learning styles, preference, and strengths (Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell, 2009). Students take ownership and pride in accomplishments and frequently show extended periods of concentration and persistence. There is an expansion of learning behaviors and motivation on the part of the student. (Guiz, 2004; Russell & McGuigan, 2007). As the learners have some control over the learning environment and process, there is a perception of safety and ownership (Ang & Wang, 2006; Russell & McGuigan, 2007). This perception enhances engagement on the part of an individual who is a disengaged learner within traditional teaching situations. References Ang, K. H., & Wang, Q. (2006). A case study of engaging primary school students in learning science by using Active Worlds. The First International LAMS Conference. Sydney, Australia. Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323, 66-69. de Freitas, S., (2006a). Learning in immersive worlds. Bristol. Joint information systems committee. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordance and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education Technology, 18, 7-22. Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313-334. Jones, M. G. (invited paper, December 7, 1998). Creating engagement in computer-based learning environments. IT FORUM. Retrieved from http:it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/paper30.html. Richardson, J. (2001). An evaluation of virtual learning environments and their learners: Do individual differences affect perception of virtual learning environments. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 3, 38-52. Russell, T., & McGuigan, L. (2007). An exploration of digital creativity used to engage and motivate “hard to reach” learners in behavioral, emotional, and social difficulties (BESD) schools. BECTA Research Report UK. Retrieved from http://www.becta.org.uk Torrisi, G., & Piangerelli, S. (2010). How new technologies can help with ‘invisible disabilities’. eLearning Papers, 19. Retrieved from www.elearningpapers.eu.
To answer this question one must look both at the functionality and constructs of ILS/VLE, as well as examine what the learner may or may not bring with them into the learning environment.
+
ISL/VLE
Immersive Learning Simulation (ILS) or Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) are frequently used synonymously. In both, the learner is essentially immersed into a virtual world. Within this environment, situations and activities are presented to an individual that provide an opportunity to learn and participate via new experiences. VLE’s require the learner to be immersed within, and interact with, an alternative environment (Ang & Wang, 2006). When a learner is actively involved in the VLE, content and motion within the “game” are so closely related, that the lines between learning and fun are blurred (deFreitas, 2006; Jones, 1998).
VLE construct
Traditional coursework, both face-to-face and via distance education, rely heavily on reading, comprehension, and writing skills. A majority of internet sites are predominately text based. A VLE allows an individual to participate within an environment where content is processed via alternative learning styles, specifically kinesthetic, along with visual/auditory. (Torrisi & Piangerelli, 2010). Within a VLE, the boundaries for reality are skewed. The environment is created via a network of graphics, assets, sounds and the interaction between each component (Jones, 1998). This interplay provides an opportunity for learning. When content is created within a VLE for the purpose of knowledge acquisition, consideration of key points must be addressed. Does the learner have an opportunity to explore the environment; is the activity flexible and does it allow for self-direction; does it provide motivation and challenges that encourage the individual to continue to explore; and is the content presented in such a manner that is perceived as a learning module or as game (deFreitas, 2006; Richardson, 2001)? Learning within a VLE is based upon the challenges presented via the content, an individual’s personal assessment of the activity, and the extent of the student’s engagement within the environment (Ang & Wang, 2006). As content is presented in a manner that requires the learner to be immersed and interact within the environment, acquisition of knowledge may be quite time-intensive (Ang & Wang, 2006; Richardson, 2001)
Learner
Intrinsic motivation of the learner to maintain their participation in a VLE must occur for learning to be achieved. Learner characteristics can affect this intrinsic function. The degree of interaction within the environment, attitudes regarding the content and the technology, as well as an individual’s personal traits all play a role in the learning process. These characteristics can either support or hinder the ability to, and the depth of learning (Richardson, 2001). The VLE provides the action, however the degree of satisfaction by the participant learner is impacted by the symbiosis of achievement of goals and skill competency. Ultimately the student is control of the learning process. Acquisition of knowledge is reinforced by a learner’s frequent opportunity for reflection and interaction within the VLE (Dede, 2009)
Engagement
In a VLE, the learner steps out of their real-world identity, and takes on the role of another totally different character. Students takes ownership of a virtual identify that is protected and separate from reality (Dede, 2009; Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell, 2009). Life within VLE’s has no counterpoint to reality, thus the learner is able to participate and learn without fear of consequences or potential censure for errors, or the impact of peer feedback (Ang & Wang, 2006). The learner is internally motivated to participate. The immersion within a VLE can shape learning styles, preference, and strengths (Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell, 2009). Students take ownership and pride in accomplishments and frequently show extended periods of concentration and persistence. There is an expansion of learning behaviors and motivation on the part of the student. (Guiz, 2004; Russell & McGuigan, 2007). As the learners have some control over the learning environment and process, there is a perception of safety and ownership (Ang & Wang, 2006; Russell & McGuigan, 2007). This perception enhances engagement on the part of an individual who is a disengaged learner within traditional teaching situations.
References
Ang, K. H., & Wang, Q. (2006). A case study of engaging primary school students in learning science by using Active Worlds. The First International LAMS Conference. Sydney, Australia.
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323, 66-69.
de Freitas, S., (2006a). Learning in immersive worlds. Bristol. Joint information systems committee. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordance and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education Technology, 18, 7-22.
Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313-334.
Jones, M. G. (invited paper, December 7, 1998). Creating engagement in computer-based learning environments. IT FORUM. Retrieved from http:it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/paper30.html.
Richardson, J. (2001). An evaluation of virtual learning environments and their learners: Do individual differences affect perception of virtual learning environments. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 3, 38-52.
Russell, T., & McGuigan, L. (2007). An exploration of digital creativity used to engage and motivate “hard to reach” learners in behavioral, emotional, and social difficulties (BESD) schools. BECTA Research Report UK. Retrieved from http://www.becta.org.uk
Torrisi, G., & Piangerelli, S. (2010). How new technologies can help with ‘invisible disabilities’. eLearning Papers, 19. Retrieved from www.elearningpapers.eu.